Diversity In Law Firms

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

2003

Executive Summary

Since 1975, the representation of women, African Americans,
Hispanics and Asian Americans as professionals in larger Legal
Service firms has increased substantially.

Women increased from 14.4 percent in 1975 to 40.3 percent in
2002.

African Americans from 2.3 percent to 4.4 percent.

Hispanics from 0.7 percent to 2.9 percent.

Asians from 0.5 percent to 5.3 percent.

There were parallel increases in J.D. degrees from 1982 to
2002.

Women receiving law degrees increased from 33 percent in 1982
to 48.3 in 2002.

African Americans from 4.2 percent to 7.2 percent.

Hispanics from 2.3 percent to 5.7 percent.

Asians from 1.3 percent to 6.5 percent.

Firm characteristics such as size, number of offices, locations,
prestige and earnings rankings appear to have more effect on the
proportion of minority legal professionals than the proportion of
women legal professionals. However, both the proportion of women
and the proportion of minorities are significantly higher in firms
with more offices.

Minority legal professionals are likely to be associated with
firms in the top ten legal markets (cities), and in firms ranked in
the top 100 on the basis of prestige and/or earnings.

Large, nationally known law firms generally have a higher
proportion of women and minorities than other types of law firms.
There is also less variation in the proportion of women and
minorities among these large, nationally known law firms.

In comparing associates and partners in a sample of large law
firms, women, African Americans, Hispanics and Asians all have
lower odds of being partners than White males.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to examine the employment status
of women and minorities at law firms required to file EEO-1
reports. An employer is required to file an EEO-1 report if it
employs 100 or more employees. Therefore, this study covers law
firms which would be characterized as medium to large.
Specifically, it examines employment status in a general sense to
display the changes in the employment of minorities and women as
attorneys since 1975. It also looks at the organizational
characteristics of firms to explore the variations in the current
employment of minorities and women. Finally, a major issue in law
firms, the prospect of becoming a partner, is examined empirically
to determine the relative likelihood of women and minorities being
partners.

The Legal Profession

The importance of the legal profession in today's society is
unquestionable. Lawyers are often powerful players in social,
economic and political circles and as women and minorities become
an increasing part of this profession, their ability to obtain
public and private influence is increasing.1

[L]awyers are very often key players in designing and activating
the institutional mechanisms through which property is transferred,
economic exchange is planned and enforced, injuries are
compensated, crime is punished, marriages are dissolved and
disputes are resolved. The ideologies and incentives of the lawyers
engaged in these functions directly influence the lived experience
of Americans, including whether they feel fairly treated by legal
institutions (p. 346).2

However, perhaps more important than the influence of attorneys
is the central role they play in maintaining social stability.

The persuasive power of law as a tool to change or eliminate
certain or nonproductive behavior must, in part, be attributable to
the respect and acquiescence afforded to the law and lawyers by
those subject to it. . . . Hence, the development of law and its
practice as a noble profession rather than as a trade or occupation
(p. 1022).3

More specifically,

Patterns of stratification with the legal profession are
important in their own right . . . but they are of particular
concern to legal scholars and legal educators because principles of
inequality among lawyers may suggest much about whether access to
justice in our society is fairly distributed. If race, gender, and
social class are determinants for entry into the profession and for
the attainment of certain positions within the profession, it may
imply that these same attributes affect the sorts of treatment
individuals will receive by legal institutions, in part because
they do not have access to lawyers who share a similar social
background (Nelson, 1988, p. 368).4

Social scientists have researched many aspects of American law
firms including size, geographic location, hiring and promotion
patterns, legal specialties, profitability, and client
characteristics. Several themes emerge from this literature.

Public Sector Employment

Many studies find that women and minorities are likely to hold
jobs in the public sector. For example, Payne and Nelson (2003), in
a study of the Chicago bar as of 1995, report that 20.7 percent of
white women lawyers were employed by government or the judiciary,
compared to 7.6 percent of white men. The percentages for
African-American lawyers and Hispanic lawyers in government and the
judiciary are even higher, 43.8 percent and 37.5 percent
respectively. (See their Table 2-2).5

Private Sector Employment

Almost all studies find a substantial increase in the employment
of women and minorities in private sector law firms. For example,
in a study of ninety-seven elite law firms in Chicago, Los Angles,
New York, and Washington, Elizabeth Chambliss (1997) states that "
. . . the lawyers who work in elite law firms historically have
been white Protestant men who graduated from prestigious law
schools such as Harvard, Columbia, and Yale. As recently as 1970,
women and people of color were almost completely excluded. Since
1970, the gender and race composition of elite law firms has
changed considerably at the associate level. By 1980, 23.2% of the
associates in the sample were women; by 1990, 36.2% of associates
in the sample were women. Although the level of racial diversity is
much lower, it too has increased. By 1980, 3.6% of associates in
the sample were minorities; by 1990, 6.5% of associates were
minorities" (pp.695-696).6

Information on Minorities

As a general rule, the available literature tends to focus more
on women than minorities in the legal profession.7

Increasing Focus on Mechanisms

Although many of earlier studies concentrated on broad questions
about the distribution of women and minorities across different
sectors of the legal profession, recent studies are increasingly
examining employment practices in large private law firms. Examples
follow.

Attrition8

Compared to men as a whole, male minority associates were more
likely to have departed their employers within 28 months (29.6
percent vs. 21.6% of men overall) and were far more likely to have
departed within 55 months of their start date (68 percent) minority
males departed vs. 52.3 percent of men overall . . . Female
minority associates departed their law firm employers at somewhat
greater rates than women as a whole, with the differential widening
as the years in the job increased. Nearly two-thirds (64.4 percent)
of female minority associates had departed their employers within
55 months compared to just over half (54.9 percent) of women
overall (p. 23).10

Earnings

An examination of pay differences among University of Michigan
Law School graduates by Noonan, Corcoran, and Courant (2003)

. . . compared male/female differences in earnings 15 years
after graduation for two cohorts: (1) men and women who graduated
from law school between 1972 and 1978, and (2) men and women who
graduated from law school between 1979 and 1985. We find that the
gender gap in earnings has remained relatively constant; 15 years
after graduation, women in both cohorts earn approximately 60% of
men's earnings. Penalties to part-time work and career
interruptions11 also remain steady. While within occupation sex
segregation has declined over time, sex differences in hours worked
have increased and assume a more prominent role in explaining the
sex gap in lawyers' earnings (p. 1).12

Promotion

A study of eight large New York corporate law firms describes
the traditional "up and out" system of promotions to partner as
follows:

Women have fared poorly under the ‘up and out' system.
Using data supplied by the firms and the Martindale-Hubbell Law
Directory, we tracked cohorts of first-year associates in the eight
firms in periods beginning in 1973-74 and 1985-86 for a ten-year
period to see how many associates had been elevated to partner.
(The last cohort, those hired in 1985-86, were followed until 1994)
. . . For each cohort except the first, where one-quarter of women
associates (five of twenty) made partner, men associates gained
partnership at a higher rate than women. For the entire period, 19%
(362 of 1878) of men attainted partnership while only 8% (60 of
754) of women made partner" (p. 358).13

Research Methodologies

Most studies of legal employment have relied on public data
sources or individual interviews with attorneys. With several
notable exceptions (e.g., the continuing studies of the Chicago bar14
), there have been relatively few systematic, large-scale sampling
studies of American lawyers. Perhaps the most promising future
development is the work currently being done by the After the JD
(AJD) study. One of the strengths of the AJD study is the broad
range of organizations supporting the project. In addition to the
National Science Foundation, the AJD project obtained funding from
a number of organizations interested in legal education and the
profession, including Access Group, American Bar Foundation, Law
School Admission Council, NALP and NALP Foundation, National
Conference of Bar Examiners, and the Open Society Institute. The
AJD project is based on a two-stage, scientific sampling design
that first selects among geographic areas and then selects
individual attorneys within those areas. The sample population
consists of persons who first became members of a state bar in
calendar year 2000 and who graduated from law school in the period
July 1, 1998 through June 30, 2000. Approximately 9200 individuals
received an initial questionnaire sent in March 2002, and a sample
of these - about 20% -- are currently being interviewed
face-to-face. Respondents will be re-contacted five and ten years
after their admission to the bar. The forthcoming results of the
AJD project will provide a rich and unparalleled source of data on
attorney careers including first job after law school and all
subsequent jobs as well as detailed descriptions of the current job
such as partnership status, hours worked, and time devoted to
different legal specialties.

The next section will examine trends in the legal profession
over time. Various data sources are considered. The Current
Population Survey covers attorneys, data from the American Bar
Association covers prospective attorneys as reflected in law
degrees conferred and the EEO-1 covers a range of legal
professionals that are predominately attorneys but other job titles
(such as non-lawyer accountants) as well. Despite the diversity of
data sources, most of the trends suggest a uniform pattern of
increased growth in the participation of women and minorities in
the American legal profession..

Three different data sources are used to examine how the
employment of women and minorities in the legal professional has
changed over time. These three data sets provide different
perspectives on the employment of attorneys. The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission's (EEOC's) own EEO-1 report is used to
reflect employment in large private law firms. Private employers
with 100 or more employees are required to file annual EEO-1
reports with EEOC. They are also required to file separate reports
for each of their establishments with 50 or more employees. By and
large when companies in the Legal Services industry file such
reports the professional job group provides a fairly representative
index of diversity among associate attorneys.15 Due to the filing
threshold of 100 employees, the EEO-1 data best captures the
employment practices of large private firms. Of course, not all
lawyers are employed by these types of organizations. Therefore, a
second data set, the Current Population Survey16 was used to obtain a
perspective on the more general labor market for attorneys.
Finally, to obtain a sense of the availability of women and
minority attorneys, data on law degrees (J.D. degrees) conferred is
examined.17 Two different time periods are examined. For EEO-1 data
it is possible to construct a relatively long time period from 1975
to 2002. Due to the limitations of the other data sets, the period
from 1982 to 2002 is examined when using all three types of
data.

FIGURE 1: EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN
EEO-1, 1975-2002

YEAR

1975

1982

1987

1992

1997

2002

WOMEN PERCENT

14.4

32.6

35.9

37

38.1

40.3

Women

In 1975 women represented just 14.4 percent of all professionals
in the legal services industry based on their filing of EEO-1
reports. By 2002, this figure increases dramatically to 40.3
percent. See Figure 1. It is interesting to compare these results
to the percent of women receiving law degrees and the percent of
women lawyers in the entire workforce as reflected in the Current
Population Survey. See Figure 2.

Figure 2: Comparisons of
Degrees Conferred, EEO-1 Employment and
Current Population Survey Data
for Women

1982

1987

1992

1997

2002

LEGAL PROFESSIONALS EEO1

32.6

35.9

37

38.1

40.3

LAWYERS CPS

13.8

19.6

21.4

26.6

29.2

JD DEGREES

33

40

42.7

43.8

48.3

In 1982 the percent of women reported as professionals in Legal
Services on the EEO-1 is nearly identical to the percent of women
receiving law degrees in that year. However, by 2002 the employment
of women as professionals in these larger law firms is eight
percentage points below degrees conferred. Employment of women
lawyers reported in the Current Population Survey falls behind both
the employment of women professionals in legal services as reported
on the EEO-1 and law degrees obtained by women. Rates of change
were computed for women over this time period in order to obtain a
better sense of the relative differences over time. (Because the
raw numbers in the three data sources differ in magnitude, the
percentages are used to compute these rates.) The percent of women
professionals in legal services on the EEO-1 increased by 23.6
percent during the period, while the rate of change for J.D.
degrees conferred was 46.4 percent. CPS employment of women
attorneys exhibit a rate of change of 112 percent over the period.
This suggests the employment of women in the larger law firms
required to file EEO-1 reports may not have kept pace with law
degrees obtained by women or the employment of women attorneys in
the general work force. Despite this, the employment of women in
these firms remained higher than in the more general work
force.

Minorities

African Americans represented 2.3 percent of these employees in
1975 and 4.4 percent in 2002. However, the percent of Asian
professionals in Legal Services reported on the EEO-1 exceeds
African American professionals by 2002. Starting at just 0.5
percent in 1975, Asians represent 5.3 percent in 2002. Hispanics
increased from 0.7 percent to just less than 3 percent. Native
American Alaskan Natives are poorly represented among these
workers. See Figure 3.

Figure 3: EEO-1 Employment
by Race/Ethnicity
1975-2002

YEAR

1975

1982

1987

1992

1997

2002

ASIAN PERCENT

0.5

1.2

1.5

2.4

3.6

5.3

AFRICAN AMERICAN PERCENT

2.3

2.9

2.8

3.1

3.9

4.4

HISPANIC PERCENT

0.7

1.1

1.2

1.7

2.3

2.9

NATIVE AMERICAN PERCENT

0

0

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.2

African Americans

As Figure 4 shows, law degrees earned by African Americans
appear to consistently exceed the employment of African Americans
as professionals in Legal Services in large private law firms
(EEO-1 data) and as lawyers in the general work force (CPS
data).

Figure 4: Comparisons of
Degrees Conferred, EEO-1 Employment and
Current Population Survey Data
for African Americans

YEAR

1982

1987

1992

1997

2002

LEGAL PROFESSIONALS EEO1

2.9

2.8

3.1

3.9

4.4

LAWYERS CPS

2.7

3

2.7

2.7

4.6

JD DEGREES

4.2

4.6

5.2

7

7.2

Further, unlike the employment patterns for women, the
proportion of African Americans employed as lawyers in the general
labor market and as professionals in law firms as captured by the
EEO-1 data is fairly consistent. However, there is a slight
difference in the manner in which these rates have changed over
time. At the beginning of the period African Americans make up 2.9
percent of professional employment in the EEO-1 reports filed by
Legal Service firms and climb to 4.4 percent in 2002. In the
general work force figures captured by the CPS, African Americans
start lower in 1982 at 2.7 percent and at the end of the period
reaches 4.6 percent which slightly exceeds the EEO-1 figure. Rates
of change based on these percentages reflect the same dynamics but
produce much larger disparities in rates of change. From 1982 to
2002 the African American percentage of EEO-1 reported
professionals in legal services increased 51.7 percent and
employment of African American attorneys in the general work force
increased at a rate of 70.4 percent. The increase in EEO-1
employment of African Americans as professionals in Legal Services
did not keep pace with the change in law degrees earned by African
Americans(a rate of change of 71.4 percent), but the CPS based rate
of change and degrees conferred is similar. Thus, changes in the
employment of African American professionals in private sector
firms required to file EEO-1 reports lagged behind their increase
as lawyers in the general work force and in their increased rate of
receiving law degrees over the past twenty years.

Hispanics

In 1982 Hispanics were earning law degrees at a rate (2.3
percent) exceeding their representation as professionals in Legal
Services and as attorneys in the general work force. By the end of
the period this disparity continues. However, the more interesting
change for Hispanics over the last twenty years is their slow but
steady growth in the large law firms required to file EEO-1
reports. Although still a relatively small portion of professionals
at 2.9 percent, the rate of change over the period was high at 163
percent. This exceeded their growth in obtaining degrees, 148
percent and was much larger than their growth as attorneys in the
general work force of 72 percent. See Figure 5.

Figure 5: Comparisons of
Degrees Conferred, EEO-1 Employment and
Current Population Survey Data
for Hispanics

YEAR

1982

1987

1992

1997

2002

LEGAL PROFESSIONALS EEO1

1.1

1.2

1.7

2.3

2.9

LAWYERS CPS

1.8

1.7

1.9

3.8

3.1

JD DEGREES

2.3

3

3.8

5.4

5.7

Asians

As reported above, the growth in Asian attorneys is so rapid
that by 2002, the percentage of Asian professionals in Legal
Services, 5.3 percent, as reported on the EEO-1 exceeds the
percentage of African Americans, 4.4 percent. (Current Population
Survey data on the general work force is not available for Asians.)
Degrees conferred to Asians also increases during the twenty year
study period. In 1982 just 1.3 percent of all law degrees are
awarded to Asians but by 2002, they earn 6.5 percent of all
degrees. See Figure 6.

Over the past twenty years the rate of change for the percent of
Asians reported as professional by Legal Service firms on their
EEO-1 reports is 341 percent. The increase in law degrees earned by
Asians is even higher at 400 percent.

Native Americans

Over the past twenty years, the proportion of Native Americans
receiving law degrees and reported as professionals by Legal
Service firms on their EEO-1 report has increased but still remains
less than one percent. By 2002, Native American represented 0.2
percent of the relevant professional work force and 0.7 percent of
law degrees conferred.

Summary

Since 1975, the representation of women, African Americans,
Hispanics and Asian Americans as professionals in the larger Legal
Service firms that are required to file EEO-1 reports has increased
substantially. Even greater has been the increase in law degrees
earned by minorities. Paralleling the finding regarding increased
employment among large law firms are increases in the employment of
these groups as attorneys in the general work force.

This section examines some issues related to firm size and
geographic location that can be studied with the 2002 EEO-1 data on
professionals in private legal service firms. The basic research
problem can be posed as follows. There has been a substantial
increase in the size of law firms over the last thirty years. As
summarized by Chiu and Leicht (1999), "Law firms grew dramatically
in size and number. In the early 1960s, there were 38 firms with 50
or more lawyers … In 1991, there were 751 firms with more
than 50 lawyers and 13% of all lawyers were employed in firms with
at least 50 lawyers, up from 5% in 1980" (p.569).18 Given this growth
in the demand for new lawyers and the increased number of women and
minorities graduated from law schools, many observers predicted
that larger law firms should have a higher proportion of women and
minorities than smaller and medium sized law firms. Yet the
empirical results are somewhat mixed.

Among lawyers in private practice, the Payne and Nelson study
(2003, Table 2-2) of the Chicago bar in 1995 finds a higher
percentage of white women attorneys than African American attorneys
working for firms with 100 or more lawyers (44.9 percent and 28.0
percent respectively).19 For the 1990s cohort of Michigan Law School
graduates, Lempert, Chambers, and Adams (2000, Tables 11 and 14)
find significant differences in the proportion of white and
minority alumni taking first jobs in firms with 151 or more lawyers
(55.9 percent and 35.7 percent respectively), but no significant
differences between white and minority alumni in holding current
jobs in firms with 151 or more lawyers (37.9 percent and 31.0
percent respectively). Chiu and Leicht (1999, p. 569) report that
in " … Chiu's (1996) analysis of the 1990 National Survey of
Lawyers' Career Satisfaction, women were more likely to work in
large law firms than men, but this difference was not statistically
significant once years since graduation was controlled." The
Chambliss study of elite law firms (1997, Tables 11a and 11b) finds
a statistically significant negative relationship between firm size
the proportion of female partners, but no statistically significant
relationship between firm size and the proportion of female
associates.

The 2002 NALP summary data on Women and Attorneys of Color at
Law Firms20 suggests that law firm size is more strongly related to
the percentage of minority associates than the percentage of women
associates. The overall percentage of minority associates in the
2002 NALP survey is 14.3 percent which varies from 10.1 percent in
law firms with less then 100 attorneys to 16.9 percent in law firms
with 501 or more attorneys. The overall percentage of women
associates is 42.4 percent which varies from 40.6 percent in firms
with less than 100 attorneys to 43.4 percent in firms with 251 to
500 attorneys.

These relationships are examined in greater detail using the
2002 EEO-1 data.21 The following organizational characteristics of
law firms are likely to be important factors and are used in this
analysis.

Total Number of Offices Per Law Firm in the 2002 EEO-1
Survey

Total Employment of EEO-1 Legal Professionals in All
Offices22

Geographic dispersion as measured by the Total Number of U.S.
Census Divisions where the the Firm has Offices23

Firm Cited in Top 100 Ranking of Law Firms by Either Prestige
or Partner Profits24

Proportion of Total Legal Professions in the Top Ten Legal
Markets25

Presence of at Least One Firm Office in a U.S. Southern
State26

The first three explanatory variables, number of law offices per
firm, total number of legal professionals, and total number of
census divisions covered by the firm, are highly interrelated.27 To
simplify the analysis, we treated the number of offices per firm as
a surrogate measure of firm size and created three sub-categories:
firms with a single office (319 out of 553 or 57.7 percent), firms
with two or three offices (142 out of 553 or 25.7 percent), and
firms with four or more offices (92 out of 553 or 16.6 percent).
The firms with a single office average 86.9 legal professionals,
firms with two or three offices average 204.7 legal professionals,
and firms with four or more offices average 454.7 legal
professionals.

The Table 1 shows the relationship between the number of offices
per firm and other firm characteristics.28 Because the focus on this
analysis is on firm characteristics, average or mean of firm
percentages are used to better reflect individual firm
characteristics.

Table 1:
Relationship Between the Number of Offices per Firm
and Other Explanatory Variables

EEO-1 Data

Percentages

Law Offices Per Firm

Firm in Top 100

Prestige, Profits Rankings

Total Legal Employees in Top Ten Legal Markets

One or More Southern Offices

One Law Office

5.0

37.9

29.5

Two-Three Law Offices

19.0

49.0

57.7

Four or More Law Offices

48.9

59.3

79.3

The number of law offices per firm is closely associated with
the other organizational characteristics. The greater the number of
law offices per firm, the greater the proportion of firms ranked
among the top one-hundred law firms and the greater the proportion
of legal employees located in the top ten legal markets.29 The
average percentage of firms ranked in the top one-hundred by
prestige and earnings increases from five percent in law firms with
a single office to 48.9 percent in firms with four or more offices.
Likewise, the average percent of legal employees in the top ten
legal markets increases from 37.9 percent in law firms with a
single office to 59.3 percent in firms with four or more offices.
It also should be noted that law firms with four or more offices
are highly likely to have at least one office in a southern state.
Essentially it appears that the firms with four or more offices
represent relatively large, national (and in some cases,
international) law firms, many of whom are well-known and highly
regarded within their field. The firms with fewer offices are
likely to be smaller, regional firms that serve a more limited
client base.

To examine the diversity characteristics of different types of
law firms, we analyzed the following proportions:30

Proportion of Women Legal Professionals in All Offices of a Law
Firm

Proportion of Minority Legal Professionals in All Offices of a
Law Firm

Table 2 summarizes both the total percentage and the average
percentage of women and minority legal professionals by type of law
firm.

Table 2:
Professionals by Type of Firm

EEO-1 Data

Total Percentages

Average of Percentages

Law Offices

Women

Minorities

Women

Minorities

One

38.0

9.6

37.7

9.1

Two or Three

39.0

13.5

38.2

11.8

Four or More

41.7

13.8

41.6

13.2

Probability

0.0169

<.0001

Total percentages combine all employees in all firms together.
The average of percentages is the mean percentage of minorities and
women at each individual firm. While these numbers are very
similar, the latter is more appropriate for capturing firm
behavior. In Table 2, the average percentages for women and for
minorities are larger in law firms with four or more offices than
in law firms with a single office, but these proportional
differences for minorities shows greater statistical significance
than the proportional differences for women.31 The average percentage
of women increases from 37.7 in law firms with a single office to
41.6 in law firms with four or more offices. The probability of
observing overall differences in the average percentage of women is
about two chances out of one hundred (0.0169).32 Likewise, the
average percentage of minorities increases from 9.1 percent in law
firms with a single office to 0.13.2 percent in law firms with four
or more offices. The probability of observing overall differences
in the average percentage of women is about one chance out of ten
thousand (<0.0001).33 Thus, minority legal professionals are more
likely to be found in the largest law firms and the average
percentage of minorities tend to vary more by the type of law firm
(measured by number of offices) than does the percentage of
women.34

The employment of minorities is more varied across firms than
the employment of women even when controlling for number of firm
offices.35 This suggests that minority legal professionals might be
concentrated in certain firms. Perhaps equally important, these
variations for both women and minorities decline when the number of
law firm offices increase. The percentages of women and minorities
tend to be somewhat more uniform among those firms with four or
more offices while the percentages of minorities and women changes
from firm to firm when those firms have just one office.36

The relationships between the proportion of minority and women
legal professionals in a firm and firm characteristics are examined
in greater detail. Regression analyses are computed separately for
law firms with one office, two or three offices, and four or more
offices. Given the importance of number of offices, this is done to
gain insights into what characteristics influence the proportion of
minorities and women when number of offices is held constant. Table
3 summarizes the regression results for women.37

Firm characteristics used as explanatory variables appear to
have relatively little effect on the proportion of women legal
professionals within the different types of law firms. There are no
statistically significant relationships,38 for either law firms with
two or three offices or law firms with four or more offices. The
only statistically significant relationship is represented by a
single explanatory variable for law firms with one office. In law
firms with one office, there is some indication that women legal
professionals are less likely to be found in law firms located in
the Southern Census Region (a standardized parameter value of
-0.134 and a T probability value of 0.018).

Table 3:
Regression Results for Women

Law Firms with One Office: Equation F Prob. Value =
0.044

Proportion

Women

Total Number of Legal Profess.

Firm in Top 100 Prestige, Profits, Rankings

Total Legal Employees in Top Ten Legal Markets

One or More Southern Offices

Std. Parameter

-0.039

0.096

0.056

-0.134

T Prob. Value

0.531

0.125

0.336

0.018

Law Firms with 2-3 Offices: Equation F Prob. Value
= 0.429

Proportion

Women

Total Number of Legal Profess.

Firm in Top 100 Prestige, Profits Rankings

Total Legal Employees in Top Ten Legal Markets

One or More Southern Offices

Std. Parameter

0.060

0.141

-0.082

0.031

T Prob. Value

0.602

0.202

0.417

0.722

Law Firms with 4 or More Offices: Equation F Prob.
Value = 0.550

Proportion Women

Total Number of Legal Profess.

Firm in Top 100 Prestige, Profits Rankings

Total Legal Employees in Top Ten Legal Markets

One or More Southern Offices

Std. Parameter

-0.010

0.156

0.084

-0.179

T Prob. Value

0.933

0.237

0.472

0.154

The corresponding regression results for minorities are
summarized in Table 4.
In contrast to the regression results for women legal
professionals, firm characteristics appear to have a more
substantial effect on the proportion of minority legal
professionals. In law firms with a single office, there is a strong
likelihood that minority legal professionals will be associated
with law firms concentrated in the top ten legal markets (a
standardized parameter value of 0.327 and a T probability value of
<0.0001).

Table 4:
Regression Results for Minorities

Law Firms with One Office: Equation F Prob. Value =
<0.0001

Proportion Minorities

Total Number of Legal Profess.

Firm in Top 100 Prestige, Profits Rankings

Total Legal Employees in Top Ten Legal Markets

One or More Southern Offices

Std. Parameter

-0.002

0.108

0.327

0.069

T Prob. Value

0.979

0.067

< 0.0001

0.196

Law Firms with 2-3 Offices: Equation F Prob. Value
= <0.0001

Proportion Minorities

Total Number of Legal Profess.

Firm in Top 100 Prestige, Profits Rankings

Total Legal Employees in Top Ten Legal Markets

One or More Southern Offices

Std. Parameter

0.066

0.252

0.230

0.001

T Prob. Value

0.527

0.012

0.013

0.991

Law Firms with Four or More Offices: Equation F
Prob. Value = 0.040

Proportion Minorities

Total Number of Legal Profess.

Firm in Top 100 Prestige, Profits Rankings

Total Legal Employees in Top Ten Legal Markets

One or More Southern Offices

Std. Parameter

0.054

0.168

0.213

-0.026

T Prob. Value

0.652

0.184

0.059

0.828

In law firms with two or more offices, there are strong effects
from both location in a top ten legal market and a top 100 ranking
for either prestige or profits per partner. Minority legal
professionals are more likely to be located in law firms with a
large proportion of professional employees in the top ten legal
markets (a standardized parameter value of 0.230 and a T
probability value of 0.013). They are also more likely to be
associated with law firms ranked in the top100 law firms by
prestige or profits per partner (a standardized parameter value of
0.252 and a T probably value of 0.012).

The ability of firm characteristics to explain the proportion of
minority legal professionals is much weaker for firms with four or
more offices. Taken as a whole, the examined firm characteristics
has limited value in explaining or predicting the proportion of
minorities (probability of 0.040). Further, the strongest single
effect, proportion of legal employees in the top ten legal markets,
is not significantly different from having no effect.

In essence, then, minorities are more likely to be employed in
firms with more offices. Their employment increases in firms with
two or three offices when these firms exhibit characteristics
associated with firms with more offices, location in large markets,
and top 100 rankings. For single office firms, location in a large
market increases minority employment.

Generally speaking, firm characteristics used in this study
appear to have more effect on the proportion of minority legal
professionals than the proportion of women legal professionals. In
addition, it should be noted that the relative size of a law firm,
that is, the total number of legal professionals, has little or no
effect on diversity proportions within the different types of law
firms as defined by the number of offices. Perhaps the most
important result concerns the absence of explained variations in
diversity proportions among law firms with four or more offices.
The large, nationally known law firms generally have a higher
proportion of women and minorities than other types of law firms,
and there appears to be substantial amount of uniformity within
this group, at least for the variables measured in this study.39

Summary

An examination of the 2002 EEO-1 data on legal professionals in
private law firms has several broad implications for civil rights
enforcement. In large, national law firms, the most pressing issues
have probably shifted from hiring and initial access to problems
concerning the terms and conditions of employment, especially
promotion to partnership. In smaller, regional and local law firms,
questions about the fairness and openness of hiring practices
probably still remain, particularly for minority lawyers. The next
section will examine some general characteristics of promotion
patterns in large private law firms.

A major issue in law firms generally is the movement from an
associate attorney to a partner. Beckman and Phillips explain,

. . . promotion to partner not only involves the greatest
increase in income within the law firm, but the partnership
includes membership to a professional elite with access to
substantial social and political capital (Nelson 1988). More
generally, partners of large corporate law firms are among the
elite class in the U.S. (Mills 1956; Smigel 1969; Domhoff 1998).
Given the power and influence that accompanies large law firm
partnership, women's [and minorities] attainment within law firms
has larger societal ramifications for access and opportunities
(Hagan and Kay 1995, p. 6).40

This promotion takes on special meaning for women and minorities
since the decision is often viewed as being subjective and thus
subject to non-relevant factors such as race/ethnicity or gender41
(p. 521). Dixon and Seron describe decision making in law firms,
"Partners in firms typically rely on centralized informal
collective decision making through consensus of the partners rather
than decentralized, formal rule-bound decision making via
bureaucratic processes"(p. 389).42 The study, Perceptions of
Partnership: The Allure and Accessibility of the Brass Ring found
gender and race/ethnic disparities in the perception regarding
equity in the "opportunity for advancement to partnership". With
respect to the partnership decision, when examining survey
responses from associates in firms with more than 100 employees,
74.3 percent of male associates felt opportunities were "equally
available to all," but only 50.0 percent of women associates felt
that way. Similarly, 70.2 percent of non-minority associates in
these type of firms felt opportunities for partnership were equal
but only 30.8 percent of minority associates have the same
perception.43

There are few data sources that allow the comparison of
associates and partners. Such detailed data is not collected on the
EEO-1 or relevant Current Population Survey or Census data. The
National Association of Legal Placement (NALP), however, conducts
an annual survey of law firms to obtain information about their
work forces which includes race/ethnic and gender data by partner
and associate job categories. (A copy of the form used to collect
this information can be found in Appendix A.) This published data44
was utilized to examine the relationship between associates and
partners.

In order to analyze the NALP data it was necessary to enter the
data manually from the hard copy directory. Therefore, a sample of
firms was utilized. The EEO-1 data base was used to select the
sample firms. The sample was drawn from a population of all
headquarter facilities in the Legal Service industry filing EEO-1
reports in 2002. There were 1,231 total establishments but just 508
headquarters reports from which the sample could be drawn. Seeking
at least a ten percent sample and recognizing that not all firms
that file an EEO-1 report would necessarily file a report from the
NALP, a random sample of 125 was drawn from the EEO-1 data subset.45
Of these 33 were not included in the NALP Directory making the
actual sample size, 92.

An odds ratio is computed and tested to examine the relationship
between partner and associate.46 Comparisons are drawn between the
control group of White men and the various groups of interest,
women, African Americans, Hispanics and Asians. The odds ratio is
based on the odds of White males being partners based on their
employment as associates divided by the odds of the group of
interest, for example, women being partners based on their
employment as associates.47 When two groups have the same odds of
being selected, the odds ratio will be equal to one. Based on the
equation applied here, the more the odds ratio exceeds one the more
likely it is that White males will be partners. The lower the odds
ratio below one, the more likely that the group of interest (for
example, women) will be partners.

The test here is not the probability that a female associate
will become a partner (necessary data is not available for that
analysis). Rather, it is the chance that, given a group of
associates and attorneys in a firm, a particular woman, is a
partner. Thus, the longevity of partners and historical lack of
women and minority associates may produce odds that are different
than a woman or a minority's odds of becoming a partner.
Nevertheless, this odds ratio, as applied here provides an insight
into the status of women and minorities in these firms. Also given
the time required to become partner of five to nine years (p. 528)48,
there has been some time for women and minorities participating in
the large growth of law degrees obtained, as discussed in a prior
section, to become partners.

Odds ratios are computed for each of the sample firms. Table 5
displays the results when examining women attorneys. The average
number of women and White male associates in the sample firms are
nearly identical (37.68 for women and 37.60 for White men).
However, the mean number of White male partners far exceeds the
mean number of women partners at 12.71 percent. The mean odds ratio
for this comparison is 5.330; clearly not even odds for the two
groups. There was only one instance where the computed odds ratio
was at even odds (1) or lower. The average sampled firm would
require another 11 women partners to make the proportion of women
partners match the proportion of female associates.

One must keep in mind that this simple analysis holds
qualifications constant. Associates with ten years experience are
handled the same as newly hired associates. Due to the recent
increase in women and minorities in the legal profession, one would
expect their experiences to be more limited than their White male
counterparts. For example, in 1988 the median age (reflecting
experience) for male attorneys was 42 but just 34 for women (p.
375).49 Further, it does not account for variations in the frequency
of partnership decisions. However, these results are not
necessarily inconsistent with empirical research that controls for
such factors. For example, Hull and Nelson report that,

[C]ontrolling for seniority and a wide range of other
potentially relevant variables, women's odds of working as law-firm
partners are less than one-third of men's odds. Because firm
partners command the most money and prestige in the profession,
women occupy a distinctly unequal position among lawyers (p.
250).50

Table 6 displays the results for African American attorneys. The
mean number of African American associates in the sample firms is
4.413 and the mean number of African American partners is 1.076.
The odds ratio does not approach the even odds of one. On average,
it would require another African American partner at each sample
firm to make the proportion of African American partners match the
proportion of African American associates. Of the 92 sample firms,
87 (94.57 percent) have an odds ratio greater than one.

Table 7 provides the results of a parallel analysis for
Hispanics. The mean number of Hispanic associates is 1.837 compared
to the mean number of Hispanic partners of 0.630. The mean odds
ratio is, again, far from one at 4.262. For these firms on average,
they are less than one Hispanic partner short of being having the
proportion of Hispanic partners equivalent to the proportion of
Hispanic associates in the sample firms.

The average number of Asian associates in the sample firms is
6.4 and the mean number of Asian partners is 0.804. The odds ratio
here is 7.313. On average, if each sampled firm added two Asian
partners, the proportion of Asian partners would match the
proportion of Asian associates in the sample firms. In ten (10.87
percent) of the sample firms, the odds ratio is less than or equal
to one suggesting that in ten percent of the firms, Asians have the
same or better odds than White males as being a partner. See Table
8.

Because the federal government does not collect data on disabled
individuals employed in the legal profession, the NALP data
provides a unique opportunity to compare the status of disabled
attorneys to non-disabled attorneys. This analysis, summarized in
Table 9, resembles those provided for other groups but the
comparison group is not White males but all attorneys other than
those reported as being disabled. The mean number of disabled
associates in the sample firms is 0.0761 and the mean number of
disabled partners is 0.120. The odds ratio is very close to one at
1.226. Unfortunately, given the very small sample of disabled
attorneys being reported these results have limited value.

Law Professors

In order to place these findings in context, odds ratios were
computed for the same groups using data from law schools.51 Assistant
Professors were compared to Associate Professors to parallel the
Associate to Partner decision. Table 10 summarizes the results. It
was not possible to replicate the exact methodology utilized above
because the level of detail in the data does not allow comparison
groups based on White males. Therefore, women were compared to men
and race/ethnic groups were compared to White professors. Data
regarding disability was not available.

Table 10:
Odds Ratios for Assistant and Associate Professors of Law

GROUP

ODDS RATIO

ACTUAL

EXPECTED

WOMEN

1.07605

526

533.031

NATIVE AMERICAN

1.31538

13

14.389

ASIAN

1.06585

41

41.886

AFRICAN AMERICAN

0.87891

147

141.765

HISPANIC

1.68077

52

63.317

Note that in this sector, all of the odds ratios approach one
indicating even odds. This provides an interesting comparison as
labor market competition and qualifications for the promotion from
Assistant to Associate law professor seems likely to approximate
that found in the movement from associate to partner in private law
firms.

Summary

Using an odds ratio to compare different gender and race/ethnic
groups chances of being partners in a sample of law firms suggests
disparities between their odds and those of White men. The group
with the lowest probability of being partners is Asians with a mean
odds ratio of 7.3. The second lowest group is African Americans
(6.9) followed by women (5.3) and Hispanics (4.2). The relatively
high standard deviation for these measures, as shown in Table 5
through Table 9, suggests that not all firms within the sample
behave the same so that some firms exhibit more equitable
rates..

The EEO-1 Survey of Establishments in Private Industry is
designed to cover a wide range of industries and job groups. To
evaluate the accuracy of the EEO-1 information for law firms, we
compared the 2002 EEO-1 data for selected law firms to the
2002-2003 National Association for Law Placement (NALP) Directory
of Legal Employers. The analysis in this methodological appendix
focuses on two main topics: the extent of agreement or disagreement
in estimating the total number of attorneys, and the extent of
agreement or disagreement in estimating the proportion of women and
minorities. In particular, we compare the EEO-1 professional job
group for legal services establishments to the NALP data on
attorneys, paralegals, and other professionals. Before examining
the results, we briefly summarize the instructions provided to
EEO-1 and NALP respondents.

EEO-1 and NALP Survey Instructions

The written EEO-1 survey instructions provide general
descriptions of job group positions but they do not provide
explicit instructions on the employees of legal services
establishments.

For firms with multiple offices, law firms are expected to
follow the general EEO-1 instructions for establishments at
different locations. That is, employment information on the main
headquarters office is reported regardless of size. Non-headquarter
offices, with a minimum number of 50 or 100 employees, should
provide separate reports for each location. In addition, firms
supply a consolidated report, aggregating all offices together
including offices with less than 50 total employees.

The NALP instructions include detailed definitions for selected
types of law firm employees. For example, senior attorneys are
defined as "lawyers who were hired for a partnership track position
but did not or have not yet become partners and who remained at the
firm (whether or not your firm refers to them by another name) or
lawyers who were hired for full-time, non-partner positions." Staff
attorneys are defined as "lawyers hired as non-partnership track
associates or for a fixed term of employment (sometimes referred to
as contract attorneys)." The terms "partner/member," "associate,"
and "paralegal" are apparently undefined. The information on hours
worked is limited to "full-time partnership track associates," but
it is not clear whether the demographic information on associates
includes part-time employees. The official supplying the
information is asked whether the information reflects one office
only or multiple offices. It should be noted, however, there is no
guidance about the minimum size required for reporting purposes nor
is there a specification of what constitutes an "office"
(potentially a problematic issue for firms with multiple locations
in the same city).

Comparison Sample

To compare the corresponding information from the EEO-1 and NALP
surveys, we retrieved all establishments from the 2002 EEO-1 Survey
with a Standard Industrial Classification code of "81" (Legal
Services), a total of 1,231 establishments. (This sample did not
include Hawaii, as race/ethnic data is not collected there.) We
restricted the population to 782 establishments by only including
those with more than one hundred total employees and more than
fifteen professional employees. Finally, we restricted the analysis
to headquarters firms only, excluding all auxiliary field units.
From this universe of 508 establishments, we drew a random sample
of 125 establishments from the 2002 EEO-1 survey. By matching firm
names and address, we were able to identify 92 law firms in the
2002-2003 NALP Directory of Legal Employers (using NALP data as of
February 1, 2002). This represents 73 percent of the original
sample and 18 percent of the EEO-1 reporting firms meeting the
criteria for analysis. Since NALP is a fee-charging listing
service, designed to provide information to potential job seekers,
it seems likely that the unmatched firms either had other means of
recruiting attorneys or chose not to hire attorneys in
2002-2003.

Comparative Measures

The EEO-1 survey provides three basic ways of measuring the
total number of professional employees: the total number of
professional employees at the firm's headquarters, the total number
of professional employees in the firm's field units, and the total
number of professional employees overall. For present purposes, we
concentrated on the first and third measures, the headquarters
report (hereafter, HD) and the overall consolidated report
(hereafter, CN). We compared the HD and CN figures from the EEO-1
survey to seven potential measures of professional employment in
the NALP survey:

the total number of associate attorneys53

the total number of non-partner attorneys (including
associates, of counsel, senior attorneys and staff attorneys)

the total number of non-partner attorneys plus non-lawyer
professionals (such as economists, accounts, and lobbyists)

the total number of non-partner attorneys plus non-lawyer
professionals and paralegals

the total number of all attorneys (including partners and
non-partners)

the total number of all attorneys plus non-lawyer professionals
(such as economists, accountants, and lobbyists)

the total number of all attorneys, non-lawyer professionals,
and paralegals.

For each law firm, we computed the absolute difference between
the EEO-1 numbers and each of the NALP numbers, producing a total
of fourteen comparisons (seven HD measures and seven CN measures).
We then identified the comparison that produced the smallest
absolute difference and calculated a discrepancy proportion using
the appropriate EEO-1 base, either HD or CN.

Appendix Table 1:
Hypothetical Example

Hypothetical Example of Discrepancy Calculations
Between EEO-1 and NALP

EEO-1 Total Headquarter Professionals (HD)

157

EEO-1 Total Consolidated Professionals (HD)

181

NALP Categories

NALP Totals

Absolute Value of EEO-1 HD Minus NALP

Absolute Value of EEO-1 CN Minus NALP

Associate Attorneys

53

104

128

Non-Partner Attorneys

69

88

112

Non-Partner, Professionals

101

56

80

Non-Partner, Professionals, Paralegals

120

37

61

All Attorneys

119

38

62

Attorneys, Other Professionals

151

6

30

Attorneys, Professionals, Paralegals

170

13

11

Appendix Table 1 provides an example of these discrepancy
computations for a hypothetical law firm. According to Appendix
Table 1, the smallest HD discrepancy is a difference of six
employees for the NALP category, all attorneys plus other
non-lawyer professionals. The proportional disagreement for the
smallest HD discrepancy is 0.038 (6/157). The smallest CN
discrepancy is a difference of eleven employees for the NALP
category all attorneys plus non-lawyer professionals and
paralegals. The proportional disagreement for the smallest CN
discrepancy is 0.061 (11/181). Since the HD proportional
disagreement of 0.038 is less than the CN proportional disagreement
of 0.061, the overall proportional disagreement between the EEO-1
and NALP data sources is 0.038. The closest fit to the EEO-1 HD
data would be assigned to the NALP data for all attorneys plus
non-lawyer professionals.54

Comparative Results for the Number of Law Firm Employees

Appendix Table 2:
Proportional Disagreement
Between Data Sources

Quartile Statistics

Overall Proportional Disagreement

25 Percent Quartile

0.017

50 Percent Quartile

0.036

75 Percent Quartile

0.074

The median or fifty percent value is 0.036. Approximately
one-half of the observations fall within the range of 0.017 (First
Quartile) to 0.074 (Third Quartile). The average proportional
disagreement, which is strongly influenced by extreme values, is
0.054 with a standard deviation of 0.066. In a preliminary
examination of these results, eleven of the law firms with the
largest discrepancies were reviewed in detail to determine if there
were any systematic reasons for the differences. Many of the
differences appear to be consistent with the EEO-1 reporting
requirements. For example:

Law Firm A. Disparity appears to be due to the combination of
two offices in the sample city for the NALP survey but not the
EEO-1 survey. When the EEO-1 reports for two offices are grouped
together, the total number of EEO-1 professionals is within 4.6
percent of the NALP report for total attorneys and other
professionals combined.

Law Firm B. Although the NALP entry indicates that a collective
form was used, the NALP counts appear to come from a single office.
If the NALP entry is compared to the corresponding EEO-1 report for
a single establishment and partners are eliminated from the NALP
entry, the NALP results are within 5.8 percent of the EEO-1
results.

Law Firm C. The revised difference reduces to 6.7 percent if
partners reported to NALP are not included.

Law Firm D. Combining associates, of counsel, and other
non-lawyer professionals results in an exact match with the EEO-1
data.

Law Firm E. The NALP data and the EEO-1 data can be made
consistent under the following conditions. The total number of
professionals reported to the EEO-1 appears to equal the total
number of Of Counsel, Associates, Staff Attorneys and Other
Professionals reported to the NALP if one subtracts 22 technical
workers on the EEO-1 report from the 32 other professionals on the
NALP report. We suspect that the firm includes technical workers in
its NALP report because there is no technician category on the
NALP.

The remaining firms with outlying discrepancies either cannot be
readily explained or they may be law firms that (incorrectly)
classify summer law students as professional employees.

Generally speaking, the total number of professional employees
reported to the EEOC is a fairly accurate proxy for the relative
size of a law firm. The correlations between the total number of
professional employees in the EEO-1 survey and the number of
attorneys in the NALP sample range from 0.516 to 0.813. The EEO-1
measure of professional employees has a 0.516 correlation with the
NALP measure of total partners, a 0.813 correlation with the NALP
measure of total associates, and a 0.781 correlation with the NALP
measure of total attorneys (all three correlations have probability
values less than 0.0001). While the EEO-1 figures for professional
employees is related to attorneys in a firm, the figure lacks
reliability as a measure for attorneys. There are three main
reasons for this reliability issue. First, some firms, as noted
above, hire professionals other than attorneys. While a small
proportion of the professional work force, it prevents exact
tracking of attorney employment. Second, firms did not appear to be
consistent in the manner in which they report partners. In
examining data from individual firms it is apparent that some
include partners in their EEO-1 reporting and others do not. Third,
some firms appear to include paralegals as professional employees
on their EEO-1 report.

Perhaps the best way to see the "attorneys plus others" aspect
of the EEO-1 data is to examine the discrepancies with the NALP
data. Approximately two-thirds of the NALP law firms (68.5 percent)
are most closely matched to the EEO-1 headquarters data rather than
the EEO-1 consolidated data. This suggests that a majority of NALP
respondents are reporting information based on a single location.55
See Appendix Table 3.

Appendix Table 4 summarizes the assigned reasons for the EEO-1
and NALP discrepancies. The rows identify the EEO-1 source, either
consolidated data or headquarters data, which produces the smallest
discrepancy with the NALP information.

Appendix Table 4:
Matching Various NALP Job Combinations to
EEO-1 Professional Job Group by Organizational Unit

UNIT

NALP JOB COMBINATIONS

Count
Percent
Row Pct
Col Pct

ASSOCIATES

NON-PARTNERS

NON-PARTNERS,PROFESSIONALS

NON-PARTNERS,PROFESSIONALS,PARALEGALS

ALL ATTORNEYS

ATTORNEYS , PROFESSIONALS

ATTORNEYS PROFESSIONALS PARALEGALS

CONSOL

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

0
0.00
0.00
0.00

2
2.17
6.90
33.33

6
6.52
20.69
40.00

11
11.96
37.93
42.31

2
2.17
6.90
20.00

8
8.70
27.59
38.10

HDQRT

2
2.17
3.17
100.00

12
13.04
19.05
100.00

4
4.35
6.35
66.67

9
9.78
14.29
60.00

15
16.30
23.81
57.69

8
8.70
12.70
80.00

13
14.13
20.63
61.90

Total

2
2.17

12
13.04

6
6.52

15
16.30

26
28.26

10
10.87

21
22.83

The columns identify the corresponding NALP data source (job
combination) that produces the smallest discrepancy with the EEO-1
information. The results can be interpreted in several different
ways. For many firms, the total number of professional employees
reported to the EEOC closely resembles that total number of
attorneys reported to the NALP. Combining all the attorney reasons
together (that is, associates only, non-partners, and all
attorneys), about two-fifths of the law firms (40/92 or 43.5
percent) report a similar number of employees on both surveys.
Within the combined attorney group, the total number of attorneys
is the dominant reason for reduced discrepancies (26 of 40),
followed by the total number of non-partners (12 of 40). In very
few firms (2.2 percent) does the EEO-1 professional category and
the NALP associate attorneys category coincide.

In addition to lawyers, a substantial number of law firms appear
to include other selected occupations in the EEO-1 professional job
group. Non-lawyer professionals, such as accountants, are unevenly
distributed across law firms. One-quarter of the firms have no
non-lawyer professionals, but the upper ten percent of the firms
have 32 or more non-lawyer professionals. The median number of
non-lawyer professionals is seven employees per firm. Grouping
attorneys and other professionals together, about three-fifths of
the law firms (56/92 or 60.9 percent) report a similar number of
total employees on both surveys. The remaining law firms appear to
classify paralegals as professional employees. The median number of
paralegals is 25 employees per firm. The combined category of
attorneys, non-lawyer professionals, and paralegals constitute
about two-fifths (36/92 or 39.1 percent) of the reasons for reduced
discrepancies. These results probably reflect the legitimate
disagreements about controversies surrounding the terms "legal
secretary," "legal assistant," and "paralegal." In summary, it
appears that the EEO-1 professional category is composed
predominantly of attorneys with substantial number of law firms
including non-lawyer professionals and/or paralegals. About
three-fifths (57/92 or 62.0 percent) of the law firms appear to
report various combinations of all attorneys, including both
partners and associates, to the EEOC and about two-fifths (35/92 or
38.0 percent) report various combinations of associate attorneys to
the EEOC.

Diversity Results

This section examines the relationship between diversity
proportions for law firms in the EEO-1 survey and diversity
proportions for law firms in the NALP survey. Appendix Table 5
summarizes the overall proportion of women and minorities for law
firms in the 2002 EEO-1 survey.

The first row represents all law firms in the 2002 EEO-1 survey
(a total of 1,231 observations), and the second row represents the
law firms in random sample with corresponding values in the NALP
survey (a total of 92 observations). The proportions of women and
minorities from the two EEO-1 sources have similar values, between
0.403 and 0.417 for women and between 0.122 and 0.128 for
minorities. This suggests that the random sample accurately
reflects the proportion of women and minorities among EEO-1 law
firms as a whole.

The next two tables summarize the proportion of women and
minorities in the 2002-2003 NALP survey organized by associate and
partner attorneys. Appendix Table 6 examines summary data for all
firms, while Appendix Table 7 only looks at the sample of NALP
reporting firms used in this report.

Again, the proportions of women and minorities from the two NALP
data sources are in close agreement. Notice that EEO-1 proportions
generally track the NALP proportions for associates rather than the
NALP proportions for partners or for associates and partners
combined together. Comparing population values, the EEO-1 and NALP
proportional differences among associates are approximately 0.02,
0.021 (0.403-0.424) for women and 0.015 (0.128-0.143) for
minorities. The corresponding proportional differences among
partners are 0.240 (0.403-0.163) for women and 0.091 (0.128-0.037).
The corresponding proportional differences among associates and
partners combined are 0.096 (0.403-0.307) for women and 0.032
(0.128-0.096) for minorities.

Why should the EEO-1 diversity proportions for professionals
appear to be in general agreement with the NALP diversity
proportions for associate attorneys? Given that approximately
two-thirds of the law firms appear to be reporting EEO-1
professional data for partners and associates combined, why are the
EEO-1 diversity proportions substantially higher than the NALP
diversity proportions for partners and associates combined? There
are no conclusive answers to these questions, but the following
tables are instructive.

Appendix Table 9 is restricted to the fifty-nine sampled law
firms reporting similar employee numbers on both the EEO-1 and the
NALP surveys (defined as proportional disparities of 0.05 or less).
It compares the imputed discrepancy categories, derived from the
NALP data, to the EEO-1 diversity proportions for women and
minorities. The first row represents sampled law firms with
associate and non-partner discrepancy explanations (associate only,
non-partner, non-partner plus other professionals, and non-partner
plus other professionals and paralegals). The second row represents
sampled law firms with partner and non-partner discrepancy
explanations (all attorneys, all attorneys plus other
professionals, and all attorneys plus other professionals and
paralegals). That is, the first row excludes partner attorneys, and
the second row includes both associate and partner attorneys. The
NALP results would suggest that the diversity proportions should be
higher for EEO-1 responses that exclude partners than for EEO-1
responses that include partners. Consistent with the NALP results,
the diversity proportions for the first row are higher than the
diversity proportions are for the second row. The proportions of
women are 0.463 and 0.375 respectively, and the proportions of
minorities are 0.151 and 0.116 respectively. Since some of the law
firms classified as non-partners probably include paralegals and
other professionals in their EEO-1 reports, the diversity
proportions for non-partner respondents on the EEO-1 survey should
also be higher than the diversity proportions for "pure" associates
reported to the NALP. This expectation is generally confirmed,
especially for the proportion of women. For sampled law firms
classified as non-partner respondents, the proportion of women is
0.463 on the EEO-1 survey compared to a proportion of 0.428 among
associate attorneys on the NALP survey. Likewise, the proportion of
minorities is 0.151 compared to 0.146 among associate attorneys on
the NALP survey. These results suggest that discrepancy categories,
derived from a comparison of total number of employees on the two
surveys, are also plausible (or at least potential) explanations
for the diversity proportions in the sampled law firms.

Appendix Table 9:
Sampled Law Firms with Proportional Differences of 0.05 or Less

EEO-1 Data from 59 Sampled Firms

Total Women

Total Minorities

Total Professionals

Proportion Women

Proportion Minorities

Non-Partners

1,338

438

2,892

0.463

0.151

All Attorneys

2,206

685

5,888

0.375

0.116

Total

3,544

1,123

8,780

0.404

0.128

Appendix Table 10 attempts to answer the question, what can the
NALP data tell us about the likely distribution of different
occupational groups (such as partners, associates, and paralegals)
in the EEO-1 professional category. As described earlier, the NALP
data reports employment totals for a wide range of occupational
groups, but it only reports diversity numbers for selected
occupational groups (partners, associates, summer students, and
auxiliary attorneys). The EEO-1 survey does not differentiate among
different types of professional employees that might be present in
law firms. Based on household occupation data from the 2002 Current
Population Survey (CPS), we made rough estimates for the missing
NALP diversity proportions among non-lawyer professionals and
paralegals and then used these NALP diversity estimates to predict
the overall diversity proportions among EEO-1 professional
employees. Specifically, we proceeded as follows:

The sample was limited to law firms with minimal discrepancy
proportions, i.e., discrepancy proportions of 0.05 or less (a total
of fifty-nine law firms).

The EEO-1 diversity proportions were computed using the
appropriate baseline assigned by the discrepancy measure, either
the proportion of headquarters professionals or the proportion of
consolidated professionals.

Because of time limitations, the NALP category of senior
attorneys, of counsel, etc. was eliminated. Diversity proportions
for the NALP category of non-lawyer professionals were estimated by
averaging the 2002 CPS data for accountants and economists (an
average proportion of 0.570 for women and 0.076 for minorities).
Diversity proportions for the NADP paralegal category were
estimated by the 2002 CPS data for legal assistants (proportions of
0.822 and 0.181 for women and minorities respectively). The
remaining NALP categories were based on the actual NALP sample data
for partners and associates.

The overall NALP diversity was calculated using the appropriate
discrepancy category for the sampled firm. For example, law firms
classified as non-partners plus non-lawyer professionals were based
on the actual number of NALP women and minority associates plus the
estimated number of women and minorities among non-lawyer
professionals. In a similar fashion, law firms classified as all
attorneys plus non-lawyer professionals and paralegals were based
on the actual number of women and minorities among partner and
associate lawyers plus the estimated number of women and minorities
among non-lawyer professionals and paralegals.

We then compared the predicted diversity proportions, obtained
from the combination of actual and estimated NALP data, to the
actual diversity proportions in the EEO-1 data.

The objective of this exercise was to assess the reasonableness
of the NALP data as a proxy for the different types of legal
sub-groups likely to be present in the EEO-1 data. If we could show
that the NALP diversity estimates closely approximated the EEO-1
diversity proportions, we then have a basis for extrapolating the
NALP occupational allocations to the EEO-1 data.

As expected, the NALP diversity estimates, derived from the
appropriate legal sub-groups, provide a close approximation to the
diversity proportions reported to the EEOC. The EEO-1 proportion of
women is 0.4023 compared to an NALP estimate of 0.3826, a
difference of 0.0197. The EEO-1 proportion of minorities is 0.1246,
compared to an NALP estimate of 0.1152, a difference of 0.0094.
Neither of these proportional differences is statistically
significant.

Based on the NALP sample, the corresponding EEO-1 submissions
are, on average, likely to be composed of the following legal
sub-groups in Appendix Table 10. The third column shows the
proportion of different legal sub-groups in the NALP sample. The
fourth column shows the average proportion of women within these
sub-groups. The fifth column combines the information on sub-group
proportions and average proportions of women to estimate a weighted
average proportion of women for each sub-group. The results suggest
that about three-fourths (75.86 percent) of the professional
employees reported to the EEOC are either partner or associate
attorneys. Associates form the largest legal sub-group in the EEO-1
(42.0 percent), followed by partners (33.8 percent), paralegals
(16.9 percent) and non-lawyer professionals (7.3 percent).

Appendix Table 10:
Average Proportion of Women by Job

Sub-Groups

NALP Sample

Group Proportions

Average Proportion Women

Estimated Weighted Average

Partners

4,047

0.3382

0.163

0.0551

Associates

5,031

0.4204

0.424

0.1783

Other Professionals

868

0.0725

0.570

0.0413

Paralegals

2,022

0.1690

0.822

0.1389

Total

11,968

1.0000

0.4136

Although these sub-group percentages are only rough
approximations, the estimated weighted averages help to explain why
the overall EEO-1 diversity proportions tend to track the NALP
diversity proportions for associate attorneys. Although non-lawyer
professionals and paralegals are the smallest legal sub-groups,
they each have a relatively high proportion of women and
minorities. Combined together, the weighted average for women among
non-lawyer professionals and paralegals (0.1802) is almost equal to
the weighted average among associate attorneys (0.1783). Likewise,
the weighted average for minorities among non-lawyer professionals
and paralegals (0.0434) is almost equal to the weighted average
among associate attorneys (0.0600). Thus, on average, the
relatively small number of women and minority partners is
counter-balanced by a combination of other legal sub-groups that
are similar to associate attorneys in terms of overall
contributions to the proportion of women. Put another way, the
EEO-1 data seems to provide a fairly accurate surrogate measure of
diversity among associate attorneys (at least in the current time
period), not because the EEO-1 data is a strict measure of
associate employment, but because the mixture of "attorneys plus
other occupations" produces diversity proportions much closer to
the proportions for associate attorneys than the proportions for
all attorneys, partners and associates, pooled together.

Summary

Although the relationships between the EEO-1 and NALP surveys
are complex and tenuous, two general principles seem evident.
First, because the EEO-1 professional category seems to be composed
predominantly of attorneys, combined with selected other legal
sub-groups, the EEO-1 data provides a fairly accurate index of a
relative firm size, but it is not a reliable guide to the actual
number of partners and associates in any given law firm. Second,
the particular mixture of legal sub-groups covered in the EEO-1
survey appear, on average, to provide a plausible indicator of
diversity among associate attorneys, but they do not appear to be
representative of diversity among partner attorneys or partner and
associate attorneys combined. Finally, the measurement problems
reviewed in this appendix suggest that the available information on
law firms would be greatly improved if all of the organizations
responsible for collecting data on law firms could reach a
consensus on the appropriate measurement standards to be applied to
law firm surveys. For example, the NALP survey provides detailed
information on specific legal sub-groups (such as partners,
associates, and senior attorneys), but respondents appear to need
more guidance on the appropriate definition of a law firm's
"office," especially when multiple offices are located in the same
geographic area. Likewise, the EEO-1 survey provides fairly
detailed definitions for law firm locations, but respondents appear
to need more guidance on how to allocate specific legal sub-groups
among the EEO-1 job groups. Hopefully this appendix has suggested
various ways in which the available law firm surveys can be
compared and contrasted to yield insights that might not be evident
from any given survey taken by itself.

Domhoff, William, Who Rules
America? Power and Politics in the Year 2000. 3rd Edition. Mountain
View: CA: Mayfield Publishing, 1998.

"Gender Equity in the Legal
Profession - A Survey, Observation and Recommendations", New York
State Bar Association. Hagan, John, and Fiona Kay, Gender in
Practice, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Kay, Fiona, and John Hagan, "Cultivating
clients in the Competition for Partnerships: Gender and the
Organizational Restructuring of Law Firms in the 1990s", Law &
Society Review Volume 35, Number 3, pp. 517-555,1999.

Nelson, Robert L., and Laura Beth Nielsen, "Cops,
Counsel, and Entrepreneurs: Constructing the Role of Inside Counsel
in Large Corporations", Law & Society Review Volume 34, Number
2, pp. 457-494, 2000.

Nelson, Robert L., Partners with Power, The
Social Transformation of the Large Law Firm. Berkeley: University
of California Press,1988.

Nelson, Robert L., "The Futures of
American Lawyers: A Demographic Profile of a Changing Profession in
a Changing Society", Case Western Reserve Law Review, Volume 44, pp
345-406, 1994.

Sterling, Joyce
S., and Nancy J. Reichman, "Recasting the Brass Ring," Forthcoming
in Capital University Law Review. "The Global 100 Rankings", The
American Lawyer, November 2002 "The Top 100 Most Prestigious Firms
- 2002".

The Vault. 2002 http://www.vault.com/nr/lawrankings .
Wilkins, David B. and G. Mitu Gulau, "Reconceiving the Tournament
of Lawyers: Tracking, Seeding, and Information Control in the
Internal Labor Markets of Elite Law Firms", Virginia Law Review
Volume 84, pp. 1581-1705, 1998.

Wilkins, David B, "Why Global Law
Firms Should Care About Diversity: Five Lessons from the American
Experience". European Journal of Law Reform Volume 2 Number 4, pp.
415-438, 2000.

Wilkins, David B., and G. Mitu Gulati, "Why are
there so Few Black Lawyers in Corporate Law Firms? An Institutional
Analysis", California Law Review , pp. 493- 618,1996.

6.Elizabeth Chambliss,
"Organizational Determinants of Law Firm Integration," 1997,
The American University Law Review, vol. 46, pp. 669-746.

7.
There are, however, several major articles with substantial data on
minorities. These include the study of the members of the Michigan
Law School classes of 1970-96 undertaken by Richard O. Lempert,
David L. Chambers, and Terry K. Adams in "Michigan's Minority
Graduates in Practice: The River Runs Through Law School," 2000,
"font-family: Shruti" style=Law and Social Inquiry, pp.
395-505 and the study of the New York University Law School classes
of 1987-90 undertaken by Lewis A. Kornhauser and Richard L. Revesz
in "Legal Education and Entry into the Legal Profession: The Role
of Race, Gender, and Educational Debt," 1995, "font-family: Shruti"
style=New York University Law Review, vol. 70, pp.
829-964.

8.
For a general
discussion of the factors affecting law firm attrition and their
changes over time, see Rebecca L. Sandefur, 2003, "Attrition from
the Legal Profession and Mutable Labor Markets for American
Lawyers, 1949-2000," unpublished manuscript prepared for
presentation at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological
Association, Atlanta, Georgia.

9.
The NALP
Foundation for Law Career Research and Education, Keeping the
Keepers II: Mobility and Management of Associates, 2003,
Washington.

10.For
a detailed discussion of attrition among Black associates,
including scarce training opportunities and access to good work
assignments, see David B. Wilkins and G. Mitu Gulati, "Why are
There So Few Black Lawyers in Corporate Law Firms: An Institutional
Analysis," 84 California Law Review, May 1996, pp.
493-618.

11.In a discussion of part-time
work and career interruptions, Sterling and Reichman quote a women
attorney from the Denver area who says, " ... There are very few
women who are partners with traditional lives. Very few. And the
ones that are there are not succeeding ... [The ones succeeding]
they've either got a stay-at-home partner, husband, whatever, they
don't have kids. They're the primary bread-winner." Another women
attorney says, " ... I mean you just can't be gone a year. If you
gone a few months, clients can kind of make due while you are gone;
they don't really have to shift their loyalties. If you're gone a
year, you know, some of "font-family: Times New Roman" style=them
go off to different lawyers." See Joyce S. Sterling and Nancy J.
Reichtman, "Recasting the Brass Ring: Deconstructing and
Reconstructing Workplace Opportunities for Women Lawyers,"
forthcoming, Capital University Law Review.

12.Mary
C. Noonan, Mary E. Corcoran, and Paul N. Courant, "Pay Differences
Among the Highly Trained: Cohort Differences in the Gender Gap in
Lawyers' Earnings," unpublished revised manuscript based on
presentation at the Population Association of America annual
meeting in Atlanta, 2002.

13.Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, and Robert Saute, Bonnie Oglensky,
and Martha Gever, "Glass Ceilings and Open Doors: Women's
Advancement in the Legal Profession," A Report to the Committee on
Women in the Profession, The Association of the Bar of the City of
New York, 1995,Fordham Law
Review, vol. 64, p. 291-449.

14.
See John P. Heinz and Edward O. Laumann, Chicago Lawyers,
1982, Russell Sage Foundation and American Bar Association, and
Kathleen E. Hull and Robert L. Nelson, "Assimilation, Choice or
Constraint? Testing Theories of Gender Differences in the Careers
of Lawyers," 2000 Social Forces, vol. 79:1, pp. 229-264.
"font-family: Times New Roman">

15. The methodological appendix provides
analyses comparing EEO-1 reports to a sample of law firms. It
specifically examines the relationship between the EEO-1
professional job group and more detailed job titles in law firms.
While reliability problems are documented, a relationship between
the professional EEO-1 job group and the associate job title is
suggested. For the purpose of this report, law firms are defined
based on the Standard Industrial Classification code for Legal
Services. A parallel code exists for the North American Industrial
Classification System. The EEO-1 reports used in this report did
not include those from Hawaii, as race/ethnic data is not collected
there.

16. Current Population Survey data is a
national monthly survey of approximately 60,000 households
conducted by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor
Statistics. The data used is "Household Data, Annual Averages,
Employed Persons by Detailed Occupation, Sex, Race and Hispanic
Origin. The 2002 data is available at
www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.pdf. Data for other years was obtained
directly from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Data for 1982 is not
available so data from the 1980 Census data is substituted for
those figures.

21. Readers are reminded that the EEO-1
survey uses a broad definition of professional employees that
covers attorneys as well as other non-attorney legal occupations.
For the reasons described in the appendix, it appears that the
EEO-1 data on legal professionals provides a fairly representative
index of diversity among associate attorneys. Readers are also
reminded that because of establishment size limitations, the EEO-1
survey not provide information on solo practitioners or relatively
small law firms. Therefore, this report examines relative
variations in firm size within a group of medium to relatively
large law firms.

22. The total number of EEO-1 legal
professionals, for this purpose, represents the sum from all
reporting establishments with a common headquarters number and is
not necessarily equivalent to the consolidated totals discussed in
the methodological appendix.

24. The list of the top 100 law firms,
ranked by profits per partner, was taken from The American
Lawyer, November 2002. The list of the top 100 law firms,
ranked by prestige, was taken from "The Top 100 Most Prestigious
Firms - 2002". The Vault. 2002. Firms on either list were
assigned a value of "1", otherwise a value of "0."

25. The top ten legal markets were estimated
by aggregating the number of EEO-1 legal professionals by city and
then ranking the cities by the proportion of all legal
professionals in the 2002 EEO-1 survey. The top ten cities,
encompassing approximately 60 percent of all legal professions in
the 2002 EEO-1 survey were New York, Washington, DC, Chicago, Los
Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, and
Atlanta.

26. Southern states were defined by the
Census Bureau South Region covered the states of Delaware, District
of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. This variable
is used to capture the higher availability of minorities,
particularly African Americans in this area.

27. The correlations among these three
variables range from 0.739 to 0.820. A multivariate factor
analysis, not reported here, suggests that these three variables
should be treated as a single factor.

28. The variations in these average
proportions are all statistically significant with F probability
values of 0.002 or less.

30. It should be noted that the diversity
percentages, reported here, are summary measures, computed by
summing all establishments with a common EEO-1 headquarters number.
Since EEO-1 data is not collected from non-headquarter offices with
less than 50 total employees, these percentages are not equivalent
to the consolidated figures on legal professionals discussed in the
appendix.

31. The F-probability values were computed
with angular transformations of the proportional diversity values.
Angular transformations are designed to achieve a constant error
variance, i.e., they reduce the likelihood of a wider range of
errors around 0.5 than around 0.01 or 0.99. See, for example, the
discussion of variance-stabilizing transformations "font-family:
Times New Roman">in Michael "font-family: Times New Roman">O.
Finkelstein and Bruce Levin, Statistics
forLawyers, 1990, p. 441.

32. Using the Tukey Studentized Range Test,
the comparison between firms with a single office and firms with
four or more offices (0.039) is statistically significant at the
0.05 level, but none of the other law firm comparisons (i.e.,
between single offices and two or three offices and between two or
three offices and four or more offices) are statistically
significant at the 0.05 level.

33. Using the Tukey Studentized Range Test,
all of the law firm minority comparisons are statistically
significant at the 0.05 level except for the comparison between law
firms with two or three offices and law firms with four or more
offices.

34. These EEO-1 results are generally
consistent with the 2002 NALP results.

35. This is based on an examination of
variations in the proportion of minorities and women among
different firms, When the mean values of two groups are unequal,
variations around the mean are usually measured by a coefficient of
variation expressed as a percentage (computed as the standard
deviation divided by the mean). For example, in Table 2 the average
proportion of women in single office firms is 0.377, the standard
deviation is 0.13225 making the coefficent of variation, 0.3504
(0.13225/0.377) or 35 percent. The higher the coefficient, the
greater than the relative dispersion around the mean or average
value. The coefficients of variation for women range from 20
percent to 35 percent, and the coefficients of variation for
minorities range from 46 percent to 85 percent.

36. Specifically, for the percentage of
women, the coefficient of variation decreases from 35 percent in
firms with a single office to 20 percent in firms with four or more
offices. For the percentage of minorities, the coefficient of
variation decreases from 85 percent in firms with a single office
to 46 percent in firms with four or more offices.

37. The F probability value shows the
statistical significance of the overall regression equation. The
standardized parameter value shows the relative strength and
direction of each explanatory variable ranging from +1 (strong
positive effect) to -1 (strong negative effect). The T probability
values show the statistical significance of each explanatory
variable controlling for the effects of the other variables in the
equation. The dependent variables, that is, the variables that are
being explained or predicted by the regression equation, are the
proportions of women and minority legal professionals in a law firm
standardized by angular transformations.

38. Statistical significance level used here
is a probability value less than or equal to 0.05

39. The best fitting models in this study,
minority proportions for law firms with one office and two or three
offices, have adjusted R-squared values of 0.124 and 0.185
respectively. This suggests that there may be other explanatory
variables, not available in the EEO-1 survey, that need to be
considered (e.g., firms with different types of legal specialties
such as bankruptcy, criminal practice, tax law, corporate mergers,
etc.). For a major study of elite law firms that uses data from the
NALP Directory to measure area of legal specialization, see
Chambliss (1997).

41. Kay, F. and J. Hagan, "Cultivating
Clients in the Competition for Partnership: Gender and the
Organizational Restructuring of Law Firms in the 1990's", Law
and Society Review, vol 33 no. 3, 1999, pp. 517-555.

45. The SAS® Institute
procedure PROC SURVEYSELECT was used to generate the sample.
Additional conditions used were that total employment had to be
greater than or equal to one hundred and that the total number of
professionals reported had to be greater than or equal to 15.

47. The formula used in computing the odds
ratio comparing White men and women is,

where G= Odds ratio for a glass ceiling, M= Male, F= Female, p =
partners, a = associates. Parallel equations are used for the other
groups.

48. Kay, Fiona M. and John Hagan,
"Cultivating Clients in the Competition for Partnership: Gender and
the Organizational Restructuring of Law Firms in the 1990's,"
Law and Society Review, 33 (3) 1999, pp. 517-555.

51. White R., Updated Tables for the
2001-02 AALS Statistical Report Including Revised Historical Data
for the 1990-1991 through 2000-01, Association of American Law
Schools forthcoming Association of American Law Schools Statistical
Report on Law School Faculty and Candidates for Law Faculty
Positions, 2001-2002.

53.The NALP Directory of
Legal Employers reports two sub-totals for the number of associate
attorneys, one in an upper-right box (labeled "Demographics"), the
other in a matrix containing counts by gender and minorities. We
retained both measures and compared each measure separately to the
NALP data. For the purpose of computing overall discrepancy
statistics, we used the associate sub-total that produced the
smallest discrepancy.

54. This discrepancy measure compares the
relative proportion of EEO-1 and NALP employees, and, therefore,
may be subject to random fluctuations, especially for small numeric
differences. Other discrepancy measures, incorporating estimates of
measurement and sampling error between the two data sources, could
yield different discrepancy assignments. For example, the effective
dates of the two surveys are likely to produce different employment
totals reflecting the timing of new hires and terminations,
particularly in cases of high turnover. We have not attempted to
set a threshold for distinguishing between significant and
insignificant discrepancy values.

55. NALP respondents were asked whether the
information provided was for one law office only or multiple law
offices. We compared the NALP responses (collective form equals "N"
and "Y") to the designations of headquarter and consolidated
discrepancies used in this study. The two measures of office
aggregation levels are not strongly related. About one-half of the
consolidated designations (48.3 percent) had a collective form
value of "N," and about two-fifths of the headquarter designations
(42.9 percent) had a collective form value of "Y." The likelihood
that differences of this magnitude could have arisen by chance is
0.502 using a two-sided Fisher's Exact Test.

56. See, for example, the discussions under
the heading, Definition of a Paralegal, on the website for the
National Federation of Paralegal Associates, Inc.
(www.paralegals.org).

57.Readers are reminded that the discrepancy reasons were
assigned on the basis of numeric differences between the EEO-1 and
NALP surveys. In the absence of interviews with the responding
officials, there is no conclusive way to determine how law firms
allocated employees among the different EEO-1 job groups.

59. Readers are reminded that the estimates
for the average proportion of women among non-lawyer professionals
and paralegals are based on the 2002 CPS data rather than the NALP
sample. It also should be noted that the NALP predictions,
described above, used the actual diversity numbers for partners and
associates in each law firm rather than overall averages.